In an email announcement to Jewell students on August 13th titled “William Jewell College: Educational Excellence, Institutional Stability and Your Future,” the Board of Trustees announced William Jewell College’s exit from financial exigency as well as detailing other college-wide updates. In two sections of the email, AI updates were briefly mentioned. One section, entitled “Your Educational Experience and Excellence Standards,” announced that students’ educational excellence will be enhanced by “AI-powered early warning systems to identify and support struggling students.” A second section, “What All of This Means for Students,” stated that students’ “degree[s] represent … new operational efficiencies through AI and expanding AI in the classroom.” I had questions about the specifics of these updates, so I spoke with Dr. Kelli Braitman, Jewell’s Vice President of Academic Affairs, and Dr. Tara Allen, professor of biology and cochair of the newly appointed AI Task Force at Jewell. Both interviews were conducted based mainly on the second statement regarding AI efficiencies and expanding AI in the classroom. Here’s what I found out.

The following material is entirely composed of information gathered during the two interviews conducted and does not necessarily reflect the author’s belief or opinion. All material not directly quoted has been summarized directly from interview transcripts and notes.

When I asked about the specific implications of this email concerning AI at Jewell, Braitman replied that “one of the areas that we’ve started exploring [the use of AI] is in room scheduling.” Currently, the director of teaching and technologies runs room scheduling through a system called RoomKey. This site is simply a formstack in which requests have to be manually processed. Jewell is now exploring AI tools to “[book] the rooms automatically without him having to do something;” the AI system would be “the same formstack, but … automated,” intended to function as a time saver. “The other thing that we’re doing,” Braitman said, “is we’ve put together a task force … funded by our grant [Department of Education Title III Strengthening Institutional Programs (SIP) Grant – $1.99 million over 5 years] … to start looking at whether there are ways that we can embed AI tutoring within our Brightspace courses.” This AI tutoring resource, as currently imagined, would be overseen by the individual course instructor and would ideally enhance rather than hinder student learning. It would allow for 24/7 tutoring “with the instructor’s materials … like their PowerPoint slide, lecture notes, assignments,” etc. Braitman stated that the task force is still exploring what kind of AI model would be used, but confirmed that they are currently planning to use a model that would be exposed only to information already found within Brightspace. She also noted that the task force is  “looking at whether we want to add something in the curriculum that would help students learn ethical uses of AI.”

Although the email received by Jewell students mentioned an expansion of “AI in the classroom,” Dr. Braitman clarified that Jewell admin has “not planned anything specific for in the classroom. … We’re not bringing in AI bots to teach,” and that Jewell is still simply exploring options at this time. “What we are hearing from employers,” Braitman said, “is that they expect graduates … to know how to use AI. We don’t know what that means for what we need to do at Jewell. But we want students to be prepared, in a way, to know how to use AI responsibly and ethically and effectively.” Jewell has recently developed an AI policy which prohibits personally identifiable information from being shared and a baseline syllabus template which states that AI programs should not be used by students to “counterfeit” assignments, although instructors can include additional stipulations or allowances for AI depending on the class. When asked whether she foresaw any changes to the AI honor code policy, Braitman said, “You know, we’re so early in AI that I really anticipate that our honor code policy could evolve over time as we better understand how we should and shouldn’t be using it. I could see it changing.”

My next questions for Braitman involved the decision-making process. While noting that Jewell is still in the exploratory phase, Dr. Braitman did confirm that faculty, staff, and student feedback will be involved. “One of the things they’ve talked about doing,” she said, “is piloting [AI embedded tutoring] in a class or two with some certain instructors. And I think that the students in that class would be providing feedback.”

Dr. Braitman also stated that the reasoning behind this AI initiative is rooted in an intention to improve student success. She told me about the early alert system, explaining how it could be useful to identify struggling students and narrow down possible causes for their difficulties so that those could be addressed more promptly and easily. She also noted other new improvements geared towards student success, such as hiring an academic success coach, implementing a cardinal care network and increasing the stipend to student tutors. “Part of what we’re doing in college,” she stated, “is helping our students grow in different ways to become ethical and responsible citizens. And part of that is exploring how we use AI in the right ways.” Dr. Braitman said she understands that students might have concerns regarding AI usage, particularly environmental concerns, and for this reason the task force is currently planning to make this potential AI tutor opt-in only, not only for students, but also for instructors.

Next, I interviewed Dr. Tara Allen, whom Dr. Braitman recommended to me as a good next contact since Dr. Allen is currently serving as cochair of Jewell’s newly established AI Task Force. According to Allen, the task force was formed over the summer as the result of an email that went out asking for faculty volunteers who would be interested in the project. The task force consists of Allen, professors in the nursing, engineering, and business departments, and a supervisor who works in Brightspace and IT. The purpose of the task force is to learn more about possible AI tutoring resources to augment and enhance student learning. The group has begun to meet with AI companies to see what products are available, evaluate different platforms and assess the options, with a goal to survey students anonymously about AI usage this fall. Depending on the results of the survey and further information from the AI companies, the task force plans to pilot an AI learning tool next spring in some courses for which instructors individually opt in. 

I asked Dr. Allen some questions about the specific kinds of AI models that are being considered, and she confirmed that these models certainly would not pull information from the internet, only having access to materials uploaded to Brightspace by faculty. Models currently under consideration would also not be trained or educated by student or faculty input – the AI bot would be self-contained and direct students to course resources as opposed to being able to actually answer student questions.

The AI Task Force, according to Allen, certainly has reservations about AI and is aware that it can compromise intellectual growth in some circumstances. They are looking into whether a class or seminar about AI would help students learn to use AI effectively and ethically while continuing to think critically. The task force is aware that AI models frequently hallucinate inaccurate responses, so AI will only be used if it augments learning and after more information has been gathered from students, faculty and the AI companies.

This story is developing. Keep reading The Hilltop Monitor for potential updates!

Editor’s note (competing interest): The author of this article is a member of the Oxbridge Honors Program.

The end of the 2025-2026 academic year will mark the end of William Jewell College’s Oxbridge Honors Program. The program was already barely clinging on, with admissions for new students closing in 2025 and the unique small-group tutorial-style courses that defined the program being eliminated that same year. The college’s financial exigency has also resulted in significant faculty turnover, including the loss of many Oxbridge professors. The current Oxbridge Senior Tutor and the final remaining Philosophy professor at Jewell, Dr. Elizabeth Sperry, is among that list, as she has been let go by Jewell after over 30 years at the college.

While the average Jewell student had little interaction with the Oxbridge program, for those students (including myself) who were fortunate enough to be selected for it, the program was truly a life-changing opportunity. With the program officially being closed by the college this year, I’ve taken some time to reflect on just what Oxbridge has meant for me. The Oxbridge Honors Program deserves to be remembered, and the lessons of its closure must be understood if we wish to preserve what makes Jewell unique.

Why Oxbridge Mattered

The Oxbridge Honors Program was much more than just a typical honors program. Oxbridge students were offered a thoroughly specialized and highly intensive form of education, one that didn’t fit into the standard structure of Jewell so much as was added on top. In their first semester, Oxbridgers would take the Introductory Seminar, an intense crash course on writing and thinking philosophically. Even now, at the conclusion of my senior year, the Oxbridge Intro Seminar remains arguably the most influential single course I have taken in my time at the college, and my experiences there continue to shape how I read, write, think, and live.

After completing that first seminar, each of the six Oxbridge majors would proceed into a planned-out list of specialized tutorials, a specialized and Oxbridge-exclusive class with a Jewell professor who specialized in that given subject. Every week, there would be an assigned list of readings from key thinkers and researchers in that field, and most weeks would include an essay assignment about that given reading. During the course meeting, the students would share their essays and would have to defend their ideas before their professor and their fellow students. These opportunities to not only write down my arguments about a given question but to defend them under often-intense scrutiny have been incredible for developing my ability to reason on the fly.

The pre-planned structure also permits Oxbridgers in the same major to develop a close academic camaraderie. For cases where multiple Oxbridgers share the same year and major, those students take all their tutorials together, letting them build rapport over time and become comfortable sharing their ideas and critiquing each other. The students I’ve shared tutorials with have greatly shaped my thinking on many key questions in the field and learning not just alongside them but also from them is an incredible feature of the program.

While Oxbridge provides students with many wonderful opportunities during their years on Jewell’s campus, the distinctive feature of the program was the study abroad opportunity in the junior year. As the name implies, the program primarily sent students to Oxford University, allowing students to join one of the oldest and most academically rigorous institutions on the planet.Jewell maintained relationships with eight Oxford colleges (Regents’ Park, Mansfield, Hertford, Lady Margaret Hall, St. Anne’s, St. Catherine’s, St. Edmund’s, and St. Peters’), and Oxbridge students could select from any of the options based on their interests, major, and location preferences.

I cannot speak for every Oxbridge student, but for me, that year abroad was the greatest highlight of my time in the program. It not only helped me grow academically but showed me a new way of learning and a new way of life. Before that year, I would never have considered moving to a new continent, but spending a year in Oxford proved to me that I want the next stage of my academic career, and of my life, to be in Europe. Without Oxbridge and the opportunities Jewell provided, I would never have found that next step forward.

What Went Wrong

Like all good things, the Oxbridge Program didn’t last forever. Identifying an exact date of its demise is tricky, but this year, in which the college officially informed students and faculty that Oxbridge would be closed and the role of Senior Tutor eliminated, is as good a date to select as any. The actual causes of its closure are various and complex; Oxbridge was a remarkable and unique program but by its nature it placed a huge number of financial and logistical challenges on the institution. Jewell is already suffering through a crisis wholly unrelated to Oxbridge, and the college’s reactions to that crisis have largely shifted its focus away from its more specialized programs; with all those institutional headwinds facing the program, its removal is sadly unsurprising.

The start of Oxbridge’s downfall was the loss of the Hall Family Foundation’s grant. The Hall Family Foundation, built from the fortune of the founders of Hallmark Cards, spent millions of dollars on the Oxbridge program, with their 2014 report listing a grant of over $1.2 million specifically to assist with program expansion between 2014 and 2017. These grants helped fund not only scholarships for Oxbridge students but also the Journey Grants that helped Oxbridgers fund their study abroad year in Oxford.

Unfortunately, this money, initially donated shortly after the program’s founding in 1982, has since run dry, and has left the Oxbridge program financially unsustainable. While Dr. Sperry made significant efforts to reinforce the financial position of the program through fundraising efforts, her efforts came at the same time as the College’s major fundraising push for the now-abandoned Link project, and later during the financial exigency. As such, Jewell did not prioritize the Oxbridge fundraising efforts, and without a significant benefactor for the program, Jewell was unable to continue providing the Oxbridge Journey Grants and other scholarships. This, along with the rising cost of an Oxford education in the first place (visiting student fees increased 34% between academic years 2019 and 2023), has significantly reduced the ability of the remaining Oxbridge classes to enjoy the program’s key distinctive feature.

The financial exigency at Jewell has impacted not only the funding of Oxbridge but also the educational experience of Oxbridge students at Jewell. As explored in the Hilltop Monitor back in spring of 2025, 45 faculty and staff members, including tenured faculty, were laid off during the initial declaration of exigency, and additional faculty members, including Dr. Sperry, will be leaving at the end of this academic year. The Oxbridge program’s tutorial system relied on having faculty available to teach those unique one-of-a-kind classes, and with the downsizing of Jewell’s faculty, there simply were not enough faculty members available to teach those tutorials.

As such, starting with the 2024/2025 academic year, Oxbridge tutorials were turned into “embedded tutorials,” where students would participate in a regular class and would meet occasionally with their professor on the side, either during office hours or at a scheduled meeting. These embedded tutorials did not count as an additional course on a professor’s workload, since the primary class meeting time was shared with another non-Oxbridge course, which meant that professors could be scheduled for their full course load and be required to teach an Oxbridge course in addition. This stopgap measure was functional enough for Oxbridge students, and the embedded tutorials I have taken at Jewell have certainly been enjoyable. However, the additional workload placed on professors added extra stress onto faculty members who had already been pushed to their limits.

With Jewell downsizing their professorial staff even further at the end of this academic year, and with the college currently working on their Reimagined Jewell restructuring plan, maintaining even the reduced vision of Oxbridge became incredibly untenable. With Jewell’s emphasis on “developing a flexible, adaptable curriculum” in the wake of their current challenges, the Oxbridge program, with its clearly defined four-year tutorial structure and closed cohorts, would become more of a hindrance than a benefit. Other unique programs, including Jewell Theatre and the Honors Institute for Critical Thinking, have also been casualties of Jewell’s restructuring, and it’s likely that an emphasis on flexibility and broad appeal was part of the decision to cut those programs as well as Oxbridge.

While the loss of Oxbridge may have been inevitable under the current pressures facing the college, that does not make its loss less sad. Oxbridge was not just an honors program that served a few students per year, it was a core aspect of the variety and the excellence that has made this college special. The loss of Oxbridge shows a Jewell that has given up on that which once made it unique, and whatever the future of the college may hold, those unique and meaningful programs should, and will, be missed.

Despite being one of the smallest liberal arts colleges in the country, William Jewell College has long been a well-regarded institution in the Kansas City area. This reputation is due not only to its high academic standards but also to its athletic prowess: nearly two-thirds of Jewell’s students participate in sports, making athletics a central part of student life and recruitment. 

However, the 2025-2026 academic year began under unusual circumstances. After years of financial difficulties, Jewell declared financial exigency during the 2024-2025 academic year, a rare and serious measure that reflects the severity of the challenges facing the institution. Although the administration emphasized that the situation remained manageable, the announcement plunged the university community into a state of heightened uncertainty.

For student-athletes, the impact is particularly pronounced. As the school was reevaluating financial priorities, the possibility of reshaping athletics and cutting specific programs seemed very real. As a result, the student athlete experience now oscillates between relative stability on the field and constant questions off it.

Jewell student athletes have always had to deal with busy schedules and high expectations, but in the spring semester of 2025, these pressures intensified. The athletic medical staff made a controversial proposal to increase student secondary insurance fees (special insurance for athletes designed to cover the remaining medical expenses related to sports injuries) by an additional $350 for student athletes. Although this fee was intended to protect players’ health and ensure they had medical coverage, it was perceived by many student athletes as an additional financial burden, particularly when combined with rising tuition fees and a temporary freeze on scholarships. In other words, no athlete will see their scholarship increased for the 2025-2026 academic year.

Compounding this unease, a wave of athletes transferred out of Jewell during the last semester. For those who remained, one question lingers at every practice and every game: What will athletics at Jewell look like next semester? Softball, for example, has faced one of the most visible challenges. The team’s head coach resigned at the end of last semester, leaving players in a precarious situation as the season approaches. However, the administration took an unusual and refreshing step: it directly involved the players in the interview process for hiring a new coach. Indeed, the players will have a say on the final hiring decision. This level of athlete involvement is rare at the university level and marks a significant shift toward greater student participation in program decisions.

Although the declaration of financial exigency cast a shadow over the athletic department, it also reignited crucial debates about transparency, resource allocation, and the future of sports at Jewell. The story of Jewell softball highlights the vulnerability of sports at small universities, where limited resources make athletic programs particularly sensitive to personnel changes and enrollment fluctuations. However, Jewell’s willingness to involve players in decision-making could also pave the way for new models of resilience.

For now, the semester seems too short to judge whether athletics at Jewell will emerge stronger or even more fragile. But what is clear is that the student-athlete experience at William Jewell is being reshaped, in real time, by the financial crossroads at which the university finds itself.